अमेरिकाबाट १ वर्षमा ५८५ आप्रवासी नेपाली निष्कासित. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context or perspectives that would help readers fully understand the issue.

The article presents detailed numbers and official explanations of the deportation policy and the voluntary return program, but provides almost no information about: - Legal context (e.g., what specific laws or policy changes under Trump’s second term led to these deportations) - Human impact on deported Nepalis (economic, social, family separation, asylum claims, etc.) - Criticism or support from affected communities, human rights groups, immigration lawyers, or the Nepali government. Example passages: - “गैरकानुनी रूपमा अमेरिकामा बसोबास गर्दै आएका, कागजातविहीन र आपराधिक गतिविधिमा संलग्न देखिएका आप्रवासीलाई ट्रम्प प्रशासनले निष्कासनको नीति लिएको छ।” - “अमेरिकी सरकारले निष्कासन नीति कडाइका साथ कार्यान्वयन गरिरहेकाले आगामी दिनमा पनि यस्तो कारबाही जारी रहने बताइएको छ।” These are accurate descriptions of the official stance, but the absence of any other perspective makes the coverage one‑sided in terms of framing.

4 suggestions

Add legal and policy context, e.g., which specific executive orders, regulations, or enforcement priorities under Trump’s second term are driving the increase in deportations, and how they differ from the Biden period.

Include perspectives from affected Nepali immigrants (even anonymized), immigration lawyers, or advocacy groups on how the policy is impacting individuals and families.

Mention any response from the Nepali government (e.g., consular support, official statements, or negotiations) to provide a fuller bilateral context.

Clarify whether those labeled as ‘गैरकानुनी’ or ‘आपराधिक गतिविधिमा संलग्न’ include people with only civil immigration violations versus those convicted of serious crimes.

Selective use of sources

Relying mainly on one type of source or one side’s institutions, which can skew framing even if the facts themselves are correct.

The article relies almost entirely on: - U.S. government institutions (DHS, ICE) - A named U.S. official (Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem) Examples: - “यूएस डिपार्टमेन्ट अफ होमल्यान्ड सेक्युरिटीको समन्वय र ... आइस को सक्रियतामा सुरु गरिएको निष्कासन नीतिलाई अमेरिकी सरकारले निरन्तरता दिँदै आएको छ।” - “... यस्तो योजना अघि सारेको होमल्यान्ड सेक्युरिटीकी सचिव क्रिस्टी नोयमले जनाएकी छन्।” No non‑governmental or independent sources (e.g., researchers, NGOs, migrant rights organizations, Nepali diaspora groups) are cited. This does not make the data false, but it narrows the interpretive frame in favor of the official narrative.

3 suggestions

Add at least one independent expert source (e.g., an immigration law scholar or migration researcher) to comment on the scale and implications of the deportations.

Include a quote or data from a migrant rights organization or Nepali community group in the U.S. to balance the official DHS/ICE perspective.

If available, reference reports or statistics from independent monitoring bodies (e.g., UN agencies, human rights organizations) about deportations of Nepalis or broader trends.

Framing effect / Biased language (mild)

Using particular terms or framing that subtly shape readers’ perceptions in favor of one side, even without overtly emotional language.

The article consistently uses the terms ‘गैरकानुनी रूपमा बसोबास गर्दै आएका’, ‘कागजातविहीन’, and ‘आपराधिक गतिविधिमा संलग्न देखिएका’ in close proximity, which can implicitly associate all undocumented immigrants with criminality, even though these are distinct categories. Example: - “गैरकानुनी रूपमा अमेरिकामा बसोबास गर्दै आएका, कागजातविहीन र आपराधिक गतिविधिमा संलग्न देखिएका आप्रवासीलाई ट्रम्प प्रशासनले निष्कासनको नीति लिएको छ।” Also, the voluntary return program is framed mainly in cost‑saving and opportunity terms: - “कागजातविहीन र गैरकानुनी रूपमा बसोबास गर्दै आएका आप्रवासीले स्वैच्छिक रूपमा अमेरिकाबाट निष्कासित हुन चाहेमा २ हजार ६ सय अमेरिकी डलर र निःशुल्क हवाई टिकट पाउनेसमेत व्यवस्था गरिएको छ।” - “... त्यो खर्चलाई मितव्ययी बनाउँदै स्वैच्छिक निष्कासनमा ५ हजार १ सय मात्र खर्च हुने भएपछि यस्तो योजना अघि सारेको ...” This reflects the official framing (cost efficiency, ‘opportunity’ for migrants) without clarifying that for many, ‘voluntary’ return may be chosen under pressure or fear of harsher enforcement.

4 suggestions

Clearly distinguish between categories: specify how many deportees are removed solely for immigration status violations versus those convicted of crimes, instead of grouping ‘कागजातविहीन’ and ‘आपराधिक गतिविधिमा संलग्न’ together.

Use more neutral terminology where possible, such as ‘अवैध रूपमा प्रवेश गरेका वा कागजातविहीन आप्रवासी’ and then define the legal categories, rather than repeating ‘गैरकानुनी’ in a way that may imply moral judgment.

When describing the voluntary return program, add context that some migrants may feel compelled to accept ‘स्वैच्छिक’ return due to the threat of detention, long legal processes, or permanent bans, and, if available, include critical or alternative views on whether the program is truly voluntary.

Explicitly state that the description of the program’s benefits and cost savings comes from DHS, and, if possible, contrast it with any independent assessments.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s rationale and data in detail while giving little or no space to other relevant sides’ views.

The article gives detailed monthly and yearly deportation figures and explains the U.S. government’s rationale (cost, enforcement, policy continuity). However, it does not: - Present any reaction from deported Nepalis or their families. - Include views from Nepali authorities or diplomats. - Mention any legal challenges, controversies, or debates in the U.S. or Nepal about these deportations. This creates an implicit tilt toward normalizing and legitimizing the policy as an administrative fact, rather than a contested political and human issue.

4 suggestions

Include at least brief reactions from deported individuals or their families (even anonymized) to show how the policy is experienced on the ground.

Add comment from the Nepali embassy/consulate or the Nepali government about how they are responding and whether they have concerns or support the policy.

If there are known legal challenges or public debates in the U.S. about mass deportations, mention them to show that the policy is not universally accepted.

Structure the article so that after presenting official data and rationale, a separate section explicitly presents other perspectives and potential criticisms.